From reading these posts, it seems like alot of people posting here are quite experienced with many of the various Moog models. As someone who uses these synths, who has owned several, played others, and hopes to buy more in the future, I would find it very valuable to gauge peoples opinions of the various models in side by side comparisons.

I have never owned a Mini, never been able to afford one, but have admired their amazing and unmistakable tone ever since the first time I heard one. I can say with no doubt (however, I have never heard a Modular in person) that I would use the Mini as the gold standard in evaluating the various Moog models. I don't think many people here would disagree with that evaluation, right?

I have owned a Micro, and an MG-1. I have had much experience playing both the Rogue and Prodigy. The others, I have less or no experience with.

I can say that none of the Moogs i know well match the tonal quality, expressiveness or deep pure beauty that I have heard from the Mini.

The Prodigy, Rogue and Mg-1 seem closer in tone to the Mini than a Micro or Multi. But I don't think one is any closer than the other particularly or that any of them are necesarily closer to the Mini than even synths of a different manufacture. In fact, I would take a Korg Mono/Poly over Rogue, Prodigy or MG-1 in terms of expressive, inspirational tone most any day. Maybe that is off topic though.

The Micro sounds thiner than the others, but I like it better because of it's other strengths (such as routing capability, "open" arcitecture).

I've read/heard from reliable sources(no pun) that the Source is actually closest to the Mini, but I don't have that much experience with it (enough to develop an opinion). Can any one offer their opinion on this subject? Does anyone agree/ disagree with any of what I've said? Does anyone know enough of the arcitecture of these various models to compare them with the Mini in terms of structure?

One purpose of this entry, is that I really want to find an more affordable alternative to the Mini, but haven't yet in the synths I've mentioned.

You've said what i've always thought, that the Multi and Micro, while very good sounding, do not have quite the classic Moog warmth. Very few notice this. They have IMO more of an electronic CEM Prophet sound, which sounds very good but is lacking just one component, the classic Moog warmth. Otherwise very much the same sound, just not the warmth of other Moogs. The real advantage with the Multi is good sounds coupled with one of the most expressive keyboards and ribbon controllers.

The Rogue, Prodigy & Source all have a similarly excellent, classic Moog sound IMO, all with much of the Moog signature warmth and general character. Excellent top-notch sounds, for not a lot of money. The sound is far more similar to a Mini's than different, and would be hard to tell apart if programmed properly and used in a mix. While not quite the absurd thickness of a Mini, they all have a huge sound just the same.

For the general Moog character I don't think you can go wrong using a Source, Prodigy or Rogue in lieu of a Mini unless you've decided that only the exact character of a Mini will do. They're all excellent; some have more than one model exactly because each has slightly different capabilities. The Rogue would be the least favorite of my recommendations only because it lacks CV/gate jacks needed to midi it, that could be added through a modification.

If you're really determined that only a Mini will do, I'd suggest considering a Moog Voyager rack version, which is close and is coming down in price. It has a slightly cleaner & more refined, slighly lighter & more transparent sound along with different, tighter envelopes. I liked it enough that I'll eventually get the rack as a complement to, rather than a replacement of, my Mini. They're very similar yet slighly different in character.

Conversely, you could try the various software emulations-without trying each, it's hard to say how close they are, and there are many. Creamware and Bomb Factory are considered the best of these, and now Creamware has a hardware version of it.

I have a Mini & Source and feel that while they are different, many of the same things can be done with either one. The Source or Rogue are nice because the Source has patch memory & jacks in place to easily midi it using a Kenton box, as does the Rogue. I believe the MG-1 sounds like a Rogue.

A Taurus I is considered to have a very powerful sound on par but slightly different from a Mini or modular, but given the expense it'd be better to get a Mini or Voyager. The Taurus II is basically a Rogue.

I bought a new Mono/Poly in the early 90s, and sold it shortly thereafter. The sound reminded me of an OSCar i'd previously owned-good, but not great, lacking the warmth and character of Moogs, Sequential Pro-Ones, Oberheim SEMs or Arp Odysseys. Many of the Japanese synths are known to be bereft of that warmth, which IMO is due to the character of most Rolands that, like the Mono/Poly, are good but lack warmth. The Japanese exceptions to the rule are the relatively obscure but very good Yamaha CS 15/20/30/40/60 series monos and Korg Poly 800 & Poly 8000. The CS series offer better, near-modular programming options not found on most other monos, but are also harder but not impossible to midi.

Basically all of the 2-oscillator American monos were for the most part excellent. I'd take any of the Moogs other than a Micro over a Mono/Poly.

I love the Micro. If you set it up right, the Micro will sound exactly like the MF102 Ring Mod. Compared next to my Voyager, 1 osc vs 1 osc, the Micro sounds darker, fatter, especially with the doubling capabilltiy. Turn on the other 2 oscs of the Voyager and theres no comparison....especially just thinking about the keybed.

I love the Modulation on the Micro. THe auto function and the sample and hold, and the square/triangle wave. This is a very handy feature that I wish other synths had. Its a feature one can live without, but if you use it, you come to like it a lot.